mugging

[missmooncat]

does anyone know why street robbery is called mugging and how it the word originated?

[Quizmonster]

The verb 'mug' was originally a term from boxing and meant 'to strike in the face'...obviously based on the noun 'mug' meaning 'face'. Nowadays it has taken on the meaning of 'beat up' whether directly involving the face or not.

[missmooncat]

thankyou once again

[searchme]

Brewer's doesn't cite any connection with boxing.viz;-

Mug-slang for 'face' and also for one who is easily taken in,possibly coming from the Gypsy meaning , a simpleton or Muff

Mugging-Now the common term for assault followed by robbery.From the old slang use of mug,meaning to rob or swindle.

[Quizmonster]

As usual, Searchme, Brewer's is but a poor shadow in comparison with the real thing...The Oxford English Dictionary! The boxing reference preceded the robbing one by all but half a century. The latter came into use as a result of the former sense...ie hitting someone and then robbing them.

[searchme]

QM- I'm afraid I don't share your views re Brewers- it's a well respected reference book.The OED is of course the'Bible', but they're not right all the time(witness Balderdash and Piffle)

I have a 1976 Reference library copy of the Shorter OED( 2 large volumes). It doesn't mention the boxing connection but does mention muff .However, it defines mugger as'the broad nosed crocodile of India',!

I guess we'll agree to differ on this but It's all very fascinating nonetheless.

[noxlumos]

I find that Brewer's use of Romany quotes invariably comes up with words that travellers have never heard of like "muff". A Gypsy would call a simpleton a Dinlo, Dinnilo or a Dinni, have no idea what muff means and although to an extent there are broad travelling dialiects generally you'll hear someone somewhere use it.

[Quizmonster]

As you seem to agree, Nox, it has been said of Brewer's work that it is:

"...if short on critical perspective, a rich enough resource to stand small but honourably in shadow beside the incomparable Oxford English Dictionary."

And that's the problem...it often does disagree with The Oxford English Dictionary. (TOED). Wonderful chap, was Dr Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, but when his derivations disagree with those of the phalanx of scholars over a century-plus of TOED development, there is no doubt as to whose we should accept.
It is simply not the case that these are equally authoritative sources from which we are at liberty to choose.
As you say, Searchme, we will have to differ here, but what I have said above will always guide me....'Balderdash & Piffle' notwithstanding! All that programme has done is find a few somewhat earlier citations, it has not come up with any new definitions or real etymology as I recall.

[GruntFuttock]

I dont't recall saying that Brewer's was equally authoritative-just that it is a well respected and illuminating source.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Noxlumos?

Incidentally QM, I have trawled the online OED and can find no reference to boxing in their definitions of mug or mugging.What was your reference source?

[noxlumos]

The point I am trying to make is that Brewer's use "Romany" or "Gypsy" words as origins that no "Romany" or "Gypsy" has ever heard of.

I am not of the Roma myself , however I am fluent in the language and actually made a point of asking other's about the word muff for fool and no-one had ever heard it used, therefore Brewer's sources have to be brought into question when citing Romany origins.

[GruntFuttock]

Noxlumos-with respect,that doesn't prove anything.

For example,when I was a child in Yorkshire the colloquialism for sweets was 'spice'.As in 'I'll get a bag of spice for the kids'

Nowadays, if you used the expression,you'd get some very puzzled looks.

[noxlumos]

Show me their reliable source for their Romany quotes and I'll happily apologise Gruntfuttock. I imagine if muff really is a romany word there will be other references to it, unfortuneatly I can't find any, either oral or written.

Btw are you the same person as searchme, you answered the question as though you were, I'm confused?

[GruntFuttock]

Yes-different computer that's all.Cushti!

[Quizmonster]

Searchme/GruntFuttock, if you're happy to admit Brewer's is less authoritative than TOED, why not accept the etymology as provided by TOED rather than that provided by Brewers?
My reference is specifically from The Oxford English Dictionary...that is the multi-volume publication one sees in front of Victoria Coren as she does the introduction to 'Balderdash & Piffle'. Namely, the only thing actually entitled to call itself 'The Oxford English Dictionary' rather than the Concise, Shorter, Modern, Online or whatever else Oxford English Dictionary.
Let me tell you what it says under 'mug' verb 3 paragraph 2...(quote)

"originally pugilism (a) To strike in the face; also to fight, beat up, assault; to strangle (b) (Now the prevailing sense) To attack and rob (a person)"

The very first supporting quote, dated 1818, is from 'The Sporting Magazine', so clearly a reference to boxing. The next is from 1846 and reads: "Most of them can mug...alias...fight." Not until 1864 is there a quote supporting any association with robbery.
I don't know about you, but all of that seems to point inexorably to the word's origin - in this sense - in a boxing punch and the gradual development over time to the way we use the word today. (All of what I have said above is to be found under the heading 'mug' verb 4 in the Online OED! It is clearly an edited version of the original.)
Brewer's fails to point any of this out, revealing yet again its lack of rigour or "shortness of critical perspective", as stated in the quote I offered earlier, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong...I love Brewer's, but it's a toy in comparison with TOED.
And there I, at least, shall leave the matter. Cheers

[searchme]

sounds good to me-very informative,thankyou